You can continue to base the claim that the job for secretary for defense belongs to a civilian, despite it being held by military men in the past.
This hardly overrules it's explicit purpose as civilian control of the military, and laws around keeping people with recent active service from doing the job. "Military men have done it in the past" may be true, but not ones that'd served within the timeframe specified and does not overrule it's purpose.
Stating that I know nothing about Islam is actually a poor character assassination. Near 60-70 countries actively practice Sharia law in some oppressive way with the backing of an arm of the Islamic religion.
From my own research you seem to have blown the number up by an incredibly large amount, but "in some opressive way" makes it very vague, but implies this isn't the amount of countries that use some aspect of sharia in their laws, just the ones that use it for an opressive purpose, which seems fairly untrue as well.
"With the backing of an arm of the islamic religion" is also very vague and not totall correct, considering islam in general is fractured as much as christianity in it's variety of sects and none are centralised in the same way Catholicism is. To have a group of religions without any kind of central leadership figure all collectively back something seems kind of absurd, and it's more likely that you mean groups/organisations of those denominations support it and are conflating that with worshippers as a whole.
It also doesn't help that you claim I have a narrow scope and say I'm ignoring the 'other issues' that you seem to have brought up when you did not. You were the one that brought up Islamaphobia, meaning that it was some kind of standing point to argue on, while still dismissing the fact that Islamaphobia is a strong dislike of Islam and not necessarily a group of people. It just so happens that a seemingly large group of people utilize it as a way to commit atrocities.
You are literally ignoring every other issue i brought up while telling you that you were ignoring the other issues to, again, home in on Islamophobia in a way that's irrelevant to the topic. You didn't even mention, in this section of the post, any of the other things i'd talked about like homophobia ect even when i'd been focusing on those specifically in the rest of my post and going in-depth on them more than anything.
I don't get the mini-rant that you're going on that a "seemingly large group" utilise it to commit atrocities vs..... almost every other religion? As if it's some kind of rare occurrence that you're no overstating and is entirely unique.
There is no evidence against my claim that the Islamic religion isn't actively used as a tool of oppression in several countries, and dismissing this fact actively changes the subject. Time and again, it's something that no one standing has put to task; to do so would be to argue against several global government agencies. There isn't much room to debate this, and there isn't enough room to argue against the fact that Islamic terrorism is the most prominent source of terrorism. I don't believe I need to resurrect sources or even bring up any US departmental data to prove this point, that's just the way it is. The FBI, CIA, DoD, DoJ and others have proven this point, along with other European organizations.
A bit of a cheat since it caps at 2005, before ISIS' rise as a power & is focused on US soil, but here's some evidence for you:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-mu...0-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619
It should also be noted that mass shootings are generally considered domestic terrorism, and considering that & the US' outrageous rate of those the statistics are actually pretty lopsided against islamic extremism.
This is fairly irrelevant, again, though.
Yes, unfortunately, the vast majority of Islamic extremists hail from a country within the middle east. This will, perhaps, never change. Wishing it wasn't so or ignoring this fact, discounting the terrorist attacks carried against the US and the EU is, in my opinion, a fairly gross misunderstanding of how the defense market operates. The defense doesn't go looking for the small things first, and then go after the bigger issues, it isn't designed to work that way. The biggest issues we have currently are within the middle east and have been for a good 15+ years. Domestic disputes are more likely to be left within the hands of the Secretary of Homeland Security, and not necessarily within the scope of the Secretary of Defense, that holds more of a foreign roll.
I don't see how it's unfortunate that most islamic extremists come from destabilised muslim majority countries, considering that's basically the most prime area to breed that sort of extremism but I don't get how this says anything exept that putting someone with a bias against a group of people in charge of military opperations in an area mostly inhabited by said people is a bad idea, and not conductive to peace nor teamwork with forces or people in the region
Defending it's activities (Islam), whether they're used to prevent women from doing anything, is something I doubt any rational person would want to stand behind.
I mean yeah, who'd ever want to support a religion that tells women they should be silent and submissive and are inherently inferio- Oh, wait, that's christianity too.
Well darn, looks like biblical literalism is the problem here, not a specific religion above all others.
Regardless, the secretary of Defense can do little towards the LGBTQ community and transgenders alone, as they are largely not of much importance against the state of security as a whole. As stated above, much of the backyard falls to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Uh? Are you sure, considering the secretary of defence runs the department of defence, which oversees the military?
Also, being a military adviser to the president, he gives military advice. You're trying to say he has no power on matters regarding the law around the military, which simply isn't true.
(I really don't get what you mean when you're talking about homeland security? Do you really think the fear being expressed is of military attack against LGBT people, rather that rolling back of equality in the military- something that is very much within the scope of powers of a person in charge of it)
Being transgender is not a job for the Secretary of Defense to worry about. Being opposed to gay and transgender persons shouldn't actively conflict with this post and thus, becomes more of a non-issue. However, whether or not Mattis pursues such things acting as Secretary of Defence remains to be seen, as the future is not yet written. Until Mattis begins to move against and process motions to remove personnel (being LGBT and Transgender) from the military, which would be a misstep considering how the military is strapped for new people, we don't have enough to claim that it will happen. Claiming that it matters now and shoveling ifs, ands or buts onto the pile won't help things.
"Lets' just see what happens" is such a passive nonsense answer to concerns that it's not dignifiable with an answer. It's that whole anecdote about frogs not jumping out of boiling water.
When has "it doesn't affect X" ever been a valid reason for conservative anti-lgbt officials not to act out on their opinions, if people actually thought like that we wouldn't have a horrible history of anti-LGBT atrocities and general bad history on the subject. There wouldn't need to be a stonewall if people were really like that.
Besides that, if you personally beleive women, gay people, and transgender people all weaken the military by being able to serve openly (or serve full stop) then it
IS something you'd perceive to be your job to worry about, wouldn't it?
If you review the actual statistical data provided by the FBI then the results have very much remained the same throughout the years. Violent crimes increase, while minorities commit a larger portion of crimes in the US. It is unfortunate, but true. I've been over this, the facts haven't changed. Gen. Mattis is not responsible, nor is Clinton or Trump responsible for follower's actions, however, I find that it is quite damning that the Democratic party was caught planting rioters within the ranks.
No one was found planting rioters, please read credible sources? The closest thing to ever come to that was admission of anti-trump protesters coming to trump rallies, not to "start riots" but to be there with their message and expressing that violent people were easily bated into violence by that.
Anyway, this is still completely irrelevant and you've dived into "minorities do the most crimes" (Which... isn't true, as far as i'm aware) they do when you take into account population vs crime rate, but that's entirely socioeconomic factors and
still completely irrelevant to Trump supporting violence at his rallies, and having a violent message that riles up violent people.
Now we come to the crux of your argument. You have resorted to personal attacks and baseless claims without any support, backing or proof. You continually berate me and seem to think that that is acceptable behaviour. I don't believe I have done much to deserve such treatment, and drawing attention away from your argument by attacking me personally shows a crack and breakdown within the argument. You claim to know who I am, where I've been, what I've experienced and what I know. I have made no such like claims and resulting to insults and petty mud slinging has brought with it a new kind of argument and it's nothing I would actively enjoy participating in much. It has shown me that you seem to enjoy launching verbal assaults without actually providing much facts to actively reinforce your position. Firing blindly and attempting to hit a mark on who I am or how I've been treated and by whom, leaves much to be desired and a bland flavour.
They're not baseless personal attacks, they're both a vent of frustration and a response to your garbage "well Trump won because wah wah i don't like people calling other people out for bigoted things" idea.
You're not of a minority, not of one related to anything we've been talking about at least and i'm almost completely certain of that and would've assumed you'd have brought it up in response if I was wrong and you are gay, or transgender, or anything else i was talking about rather than your textbook vague "You don't know me, you don't know i'm not" thing.
You've pretended it's a "personal attack" rather than a response to you, a response to your awful tone and completely wrong assumption in that specific part of the response where you've entirely deflected any and all responsibility for bigotry from not only yourself but just in general by trying to tell me that marginalised groups are wrong for calling people out for their harmful and hurtful actions or words, and that it's
their fault that not only are people like that to start with, but that there's a push back against the very concepts of their open presence.
All whining about """Political correctness""" ,like what you did by proxy, stem from that exact same deflection of responsibility and deflection of any conceptions of wrongdoing by anyone.
Anyway, I would much rather actually discuss stuff relevant to the topic, instead of having to roll my eyes back into my skull everytime this website gives me a notification
